Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

GoldenEagle

Posted 08 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

GoldenEagle

Royal Member

Royal Member

8,518 posts

This thread is closed for review.

Edit: This thread has been revised, the posts toned down, and the posts now reflect the WCF ToS I believe. Please proceed by respecting God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible. Please also respect each other in your posts or this thread will be closed again. Debate the subject not the person.

thomas t

Posted 09 January 2013 - 06:19 AM

Hello agooyers,you have many thoughts, I'd like to pick up some out of the corrected version in case you didn't mind and think that these postings still provide a basis for discussion?

Having some knowledge of the Ten Commandments, I had to contradict him and argue that in my opinion not only are the Ten Commandments incomplete as a legal system, I believe the teachings of the entire Bible do not even come close to constituting a complete and functional modern system of laws, and I believe failing to explicitly forbid rape, slavery, and pedophilia for example (in fact endorsing these things when committed against rival tribes, and also encouraging genocide against rival tribes).

[coloured and bolded mine]

1) you didn't provide any scripture to give evidence to you claim that the Bible endorsed rape for example. It's absurd, I think.

2) Let's talk about terminology. "Genocide" (i) is the wrong expression for anything that God ordered. God is allowed to do whatever he wants. When people kill other nations without having received a direct commandment of God, that's genocide. The Bible, however left no doubt about the fact that God himself ordered the killing of the Kanaanites. Let me give you an analogy to get my point across. When the state collects taxes, is this called theft? No it isn't. However, when I'd take your purse, it is.

thomas t

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

thomas t

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

482 posts

... now I'd like to go into more detail:

Commandment #6. Thou shalt not kill.

Needless to say, I have no problem with this one. It's a good one. Unfortunately, in my opinion much of the rest of the Bible doesn't really seem to think so. There are so many examples of God killing people with impunity and relish, often what seems to me for ridiculous or petty reasons, and so many examples of God proscribing murder, genocide, and wholly unwarranted capital punishment, it boggles my mind.

[bolded mine]

I think what you are doing here, even in the corrected version - and GE seemed to have had tons of work for monitoring this post - is nothing else than a slap into God's face, I think. When we accuse the Jew totally without any firm reason, It's called anti-semitism. I think what you did here with the remark "relish" is blasphemy. You don't have the slightest bit of evidence for that.

Commandment #1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

This first commandment simply does not gel with freedom of religion. In a modern society, we do not have any laws trying to force anyone to adhere to any specific deity. We do not have any law that says "Hindus may continue to call themselves Hindus, but the only deity they may worship is the Abrahamic deity Yahweh." And we are better for it. Religious freedom, including the right to have no religion or any belief in any deity, is vital to personal freedom and prevents religious persecution. An issue I have is that the Bible calls for capital punishment for the "crime" of having deities other than the Hebrew one.

Commandment #2: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Well, Things Engraved is in trouble if this is to be enforced! I kid, I'm not actually being obtuse, claiming that this commandment is forbidding sculptures or carvings. It's forbidding idol worship. Again, this stands in direct contradiction of religious freedom. We have absolutely no law saying you can't make representations of your deities/icons of worship. If I wanted to I could make myself a golden calf and bow down to it til the real cows came home. I personally wouldn't believe it actually represented anything, but even if I did, the government couldn't keep me from doing it. They certainly wouldn't put me to death, as the Bible requests of those in authority.

Commandment #3: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

First, if this were a law it would assume in its language that Yahweh is everyone's god. Which would be a violation of freedom of religion. This isn't so in the U.S. Second, this flies in the face of freedom of speech, another absolutely vital freedom to a modern democratic society. There is no law forbidding me from saying for example a curse word if I want. Why is the commandment against murder not commandment Number 1? Again, the punishment for this is supposed to be death, according to the Bible.

Commandment #4: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

I don't even know what modern laws this would contradict. Freedom of religion AGAIN.

[bolded mine]

Now let's turn to the less horrible things (my opinion) out of your posting: You claim that there wouldn't be religious freedom, if the ten commandments would turn into law. You are right in a sense that anything prohibiting different religions would be wrong. However, Jesus wants us to deliberatly believe in him. Turning this commandment into what you think corresonds to it best (the law), would counteract free will, which is a necessary ingredient to faith.

I'd like to add that your opinion I bolded in the above quote pointed to particular occasions only!

thomas t

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:15 AM

thomas t

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

482 posts

I recently had a Christian, trying to defend the Creation Museum in Kentucky, trying to convince me that actually there is no such thing as Atheists because every human being actually believes in God, and trying to argue that modern laws, legal systems, and civil institutions are actually striving to be the equal of the "perfect Ten Commandments".

<snip>

Uh huh....

Are you asking about the Bible as a whole?

Just the Old Testament?

The 10 commandments which were given as a covenant sign to Israel?

The entire body of the law? (613...365 "thou shalt nots" and 248 "thou must do's")

We probably need to narrow this down a bit.

Hello McGiver,I didn't like your posting because it went over all the blasphemy out of the old post you quoted. I mean (that's my personal opinion) the first thing we should do when we deal with someone mocking God is to tackle the blasphemy. What you did was going over it and instead mcgivering details. What you did is just spreading the poison of blasphemy, I think.Thomas

He giveth more grace

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:16 AM

Mcgyver

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:23 AM

Mcgyver

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

442 posts

I recently had a Christian, trying to defend the Creation Museum in Kentucky, trying to convince me that actually there is no such thing as Atheists because every human being actually believes in God, and trying to argue that modern laws, legal systems, and civil institutions are actually striving to be the equal of the "perfect Ten Commandments".

<snip>

Uh huh....

Are you asking about the Bible as a whole?

Just the Old Testament?

The 10 commandments which were given as a covenant sign to Israel?

The entire body of the law? (613...365 "thou shalt nots" and 248 "thou must do's")

We probably need to narrow this down a bit.

Hello McGiver,I didn't like your posting because it went over all the blasphemy out of the old post you quoted. I mean (that's my personal opinion) the first thing we should do when we deal with someone mocking God is to tackle the blasphemy. What you did was going over it and instead mcgivering details. What you did is just spreading the poison of blasphemy, I think.Thomas

Brother, I understand your position...however I realized that this fellow was trying to provoke a reaction, to bait us if you will. I refuse to rise to the bait.

The scripture tells us: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

This is a perfect example of that...I have found in the course of ministry that when one is confrontational, angry, trying to provoke a reaction; that if I respond by meeting them in kind then nothing is accomplished.

If however I remain calm and address the question, sooner or later they calm down and an opportunity arises to plant a seed, to share the gospel. I don't like many things that they say about God, but God is well able to defend Himself....and we need to remember that Christ died for this fellow also.

I think that our call as Christians is not to "defend" God...our call is to reach them with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ and let the Holy Spirit do His work in their lives.

I'll leave it to our outstanding moderators to enforce the ToS...and I will try not to violate the ToS...but really, if I as a poster tell him to "knock it off" what would happen?

GoldenEagle

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

GoldenEagle

Royal Member

Royal Member

8,518 posts

All,

If someone is violating the ToS for future reference I suggest linking the ToS to them on the thread. Often people gloss over the ToS (Terms of Service) when signing up. I am also thankful for the reports from members.

Thomas, just an observation but as you have entered the conversation after the edits were made perhaps it doesn't quite flow as it did originally. However, I believe that Mcgyver was trying to narrow down and focus the conversation. All 10 commandments were addressed. Starting with #1 was probably a good idea in order not to bite of more than one can chew. Do you see?

nebula

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

nebula

Royal Member

Worthy Watchman

56,992 posts

Please consider this in your questions, agooyers:

... Having some knowledge of the Ten Commandments, I had to contradict him and argue that in my opinion not only are the Ten Commandments incomplete as a legal system, I believe the teachings of the entire Bible do not even come close to constituting a complete and functional modern system of laws, and I believe failing to explicitly forbid rape, slavery, and pedophilia for example (in fact endorsing these things when committed against rival tribes, and also encouraging genocide against rival tribes).

In your reply statement, you are mixing concepts. Allow me to explain.

The Ten Commandments were never meant to be a complete legal system. There are chapters and chapters of Law throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that deal with more specific issues.

The Torah (first five books of the Bible) was not written in modern times so obviously it does not address modern issues and philosophies. However, we can glean principles, the "spirit of the law" if you will where "the letter of the law" is not clear.

The purpose of "the entire Bible" is not to create a legal system; only the Torah contains a legal code for a specific Theocracy. As for the purpose of the Bible, I like the explanation I have used in my sig line: "The Bible is ... the story of God making His reality known in the brokenness of our world. It doesn't end with a book called Revelation, but with a person - Jesus Himself! Scripture guides us to Him so we can know him. (John 5:40)" ~Wayne Jacobsen

Now the Torah actually does forbid rape, so that charge is false. Would you like to see the passages?

I would like to see your evidence for claiming the Bible encourages pedophilia?

As for slavery and genocide, those deserves their own separate thread (I am not saying this to brush aside the charge, but a full explanation can lead to an extensive debate all on their own).

thomas t

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:33 AM

proceed with his blasphemy? I don't want to be cheeky, but this is what came to my mind when I read this.

Hi GE,ok. I realize, that I maybe didn't find everything.Thomas

Good day McGyver

If however I remain calm and address the question, sooner or later they calm down and an opportunity arises to plant a seed, to share the gospel. I don't like many things that they say about God, but God is well able to defend Himself....and we need to remember that Christ died for this fellow also.

I think that our call as Christians is not to "defend" God...our call is to reach them with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ and let the Holy Spirit do His work in their lives.

I'll leave it to our outstanding moderators to enforce the ToS...and I will try not to violate the ToS...but really, if I as a poster tell him to "knock it off" what would happen?

Although I agree with you on the green one, and even on the blue one - this is true we should not defend our Lord - I want to try to answer the red one.I mean the same question could be asked concerning racism. How do we react if a poster comes across with an analysis that contains racist remarks? We should stand up and fight.It's not so much that God needs to be defended:it is that IMO- the blasphemy has to get immediately out. If that is done, then you can come with your statements that go in detail. Well - I don't know what else you wrote in the then edited post.- the mods can't be around 24 hours. I am convinced that GE did a great job, but he is a human and humans don't maybe detect every single bit of blasphemy by themselves right from the start. Together the blasphemy is most likely to be revealed. <- This is just my two cents, maybe it's different.- let me ask you the following question: once your father is called a relishing murderer, how do you react? sit down calmly and discuss things over a but?Have you ever been on rally against Nazis? The Nazis standing on the other side with their megaphone wanting to talk...? What do you do? Telling the others: "Yes let's sit down and talk things over?" Well I don't think that this works. Shouting two hours so they'll go away (I'm not allowed to use smear words here according to the ToS) is the alternative. Well, we don't want nonbelievers who discuss in an offensive manner to go away the minute they enter here, but blasphemy is the very first thing that needs to be adressed and then follows all the rest. I didn't want nonbelievers who just happened to discuss things in an inappropriate manner to be compared to Nazis. They way racism is usually tackled just came to my mind and that's the way we could tackle blasphemy, too, I think. Of course we tell Nazis to "knock it off", and that's the way we can tell people who used blasphemy in their posts, to knock it off, too, I think.

Mcgyver

Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

You said there were no civil penalty for disobedience of the Ten Commandments. Being put to death would seem to be a pretty stiff penalty, maybe I misunderstood?

I am curious what you mean when you say "to understand why the law was given in the first place, one must look at the nature of God."

Couple of things...first is that Nebula gave a great reply in post #30, especially addressing the Law and 10 commandments.

But to answer your question.

It has been said that the Bible is the story of Generation, De-generation, and Regeneration...and again I believe that it was B. B. Warfield who likened the OT to a fully furnished and richly appointed room that is dimly lit. In the NT, nothing is added but the light.

The "golden thread" that runs from Genesis through Revelation is Love. The story of God setting into place a mechanism whereby sinful man could be reconciled with a perfect, righteous, and holy God. The key word being reconciled...to restore, make anew, mend the relationship that was rent by sin.

Now to tie this in with the law...

One of the attributes or nature of God is perfection. He is perfect, and therefore His standard is one of perfection.

The Scripture tells us in Galatians 3:23-25 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Emphasis mine)

And again: For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. James 2:10-11

So then, the law was given to show us that we could not reach a Holy God by our own efforts...for no one could keep perfectly the whole law either in letter or spirit (except Jesus Christ). Therefore it would take God Himself to make provision for the reconciliation He so fervently desires out of His love for us.

It is best summed up in John 3:16.

The law was given specifically to the Jews, for it was out of the Jews...His chosen people...that Messiah would (in due time) come.

j102

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:00 PM

j102

Veteran Member

Advanced Member

577 posts

The purpose of the outer court is so those who have a desire to understand more about Christianity can come and interact with Christians and learn. Are you seeking to understand how you might have a relationship with Jesus Christ, agooyers?

One could say I have a desire to understand more about Christianity, in that I want to understand the way Christians think. Christians attribute some rather large claims for their religion, and in the United States especially seek some rather ambitious special consideration for their beliefs, and I want to hear their supporting arguments in that regard.

Of course I am not seeking to have a personal relationship with someone who in my mind a dead man, to my mind the idea is ridiculous, delusional even. And considering this is the "Apologetics" section of the forum, it would seem rather disingenuous of you to then imply that if I adamantly state that I am not willing to be converted, that I'm not allowed to discuss Christianity on this forum. So let me be clear: It would take very compelling evidence to persuade me to believe any metaphysical claim made by anyone. No, I actually do not want to believe in a cosmic being who can read my thoughts, demands that I worship him, and threatens me with eternal torture if I don't accept on faith (ie. belief without evidence) his existence and that I should obey his commands (in my opinion not direct commands, but ancient second hand accounts). I would be willing to believe it if there were compelling evidence of such. I have yet to be presented with any.

Maybe I should ask you a question, gdemoss. Do you intend to ban me now that I have admitted that I want to discuss Christianity, but have absolutely no desire or intention to convert?

instead of asking believers to prove God you should ask God to reveal himself to you and be real about it when you ask not half hearted